So his opponents aren't really that weak, thus his exhaustion.
@QathetMike said in #31:
> So his opponents aren't really that weak, thus his exhaustion.
No matter who face Magnus they will lose. Magnus and all of us know that. Carlsen can play the titlematch every time. But he wondt waste energy on this circumstances, even he make a lot of money because of the titlematch.
The only thing who motivates him to defend the title is to face Firouzja because he is a creative and exited player.
But also change the format with example more games.
Maby a reason why example Fischer and Morphy had an early retirement...Because they knew they were the best and the contenderes were not in close. Its just like Barcelona or Real Madrid playing Villareal or Sevilla, that difference.
> So his opponents aren't really that weak, thus his exhaustion.
No matter who face Magnus they will lose. Magnus and all of us know that. Carlsen can play the titlematch every time. But he wondt waste energy on this circumstances, even he make a lot of money because of the titlematch.
The only thing who motivates him to defend the title is to face Firouzja because he is a creative and exited player.
But also change the format with example more games.
Maby a reason why example Fischer and Morphy had an early retirement...Because they knew they were the best and the contenderes were not in close. Its just like Barcelona or Real Madrid playing Villareal or Sevilla, that difference.
@Devil_fish said in #25:
> So you mean that Niemann now are the goat?
> Niemann have barely reached 2700 in rating...and about 2 yrs ago the american lost to a NM at café chess, he blundered mate in one. So since Niemann lost to the national master then the national master are the goat, in your'e logic. Lol
You fully support my point.
The "greatest of all time" on his peak does not lose multiple times against a <2700 "idiot" ;P
Being aware of this fact Magnus went total accusation mode.
> So you mean that Niemann now are the goat?
> Niemann have barely reached 2700 in rating...and about 2 yrs ago the american lost to a NM at café chess, he blundered mate in one. So since Niemann lost to the national master then the national master are the goat, in your'e logic. Lol
You fully support my point.
The "greatest of all time" on his peak does not lose multiple times against a <2700 "idiot" ;P
Being aware of this fact Magnus went total accusation mode.
@new_player_123 said in #33:
> You fully support my point.
>
> The "greatest of all time" on his peak does not lose multiple times against a <2700 "idiot" ;P
>
> Being aware of this fact Magnus went total accusation mode.
Magnus lost multiple to Hans? Where and when? Stop trolling, and stop act like you are a child.
Because Magnus once lost against Niemann it doesnt mean anything.
Even the biggest clubs in football losing to the small clubs sometimes. It happens in every type of sport, and with everyone.
> You fully support my point.
>
> The "greatest of all time" on his peak does not lose multiple times against a <2700 "idiot" ;P
>
> Being aware of this fact Magnus went total accusation mode.
Magnus lost multiple to Hans? Where and when? Stop trolling, and stop act like you are a child.
Because Magnus once lost against Niemann it doesnt mean anything.
Even the biggest clubs in football losing to the small clubs sometimes. It happens in every type of sport, and with everyone.
'Magnus lost multiple to Hans? "
Strawman, as new_player_123 did not say Magnus lost multiple times to Hans.
He did say that Magnus has lost multiple times to players below 2700-which is true.
Strawman, as new_player_123 did not say Magnus lost multiple times to Hans.
He did say that Magnus has lost multiple times to players below 2700-which is true.
@QathetMike said in #35:
> 'Magnus lost multiple to Hans? "
>
> Strawman, as new_player_123 did not say Magnus lost multiple times to Hans.
> He did say that Magnus has lost multiple times to players below 2700-which is true.
Oh ok. Its pretty normal to do that. Players below under 2700 are extremely good too - in any timecontrol.
Magnus have example lost many times against example former european blitz champion Sergei Zhigalko, in blitz/bullet online. Magnus have also example lost to Aryan Tari otb in classical or something.
It happens. BUT Magnus wins over them over many games...Example the underdog who face Magnus will win against Magnus about 1 out of atleast 10 games, and some of them will be draw to. In the long run Magnus will anyway will be last man standing, example in random tournaments. And this is the all about.
I have win against Firouzja in fischer random in first attempt several years ago. I cant just come with statement that im better than him in that variant, that is nonsens, because it was luck and he is 10 times stronger than me.
Hans were lucky as an underdog...He also won on first attempt.
But pro's in these days are much stronger than the players when example Morphy and Fischer played, and that is the big difference. The contenders to Morphy and Fischer were weak in general, tactical and positional compared today, on top level.
Remember example "The opera game"? Morphy could do whatever he want in the attack...Why is that? Because the opponent blundered in the opening, thats why! Overrated game.
Another overrated game were "game of the century" with Fischer against Byrne...were Byrne played like he was 900 rated player...so it more difficult for Magnus to win game after game, after game, after game than it was for Morphy and Fischer.
Nakamura once said that Morphy's real strenght if he played today would be around 2300-2400 level.
The chess have devoloped so much since Morphy played.
Morphy would had no chance against Magnus today...Because the strongest chessplayers today plays like engine. Si its extremely difficult to win in these days. Today you have to dig deep to eventually win. When Morphy and Fischer played it was easy for them to win in general. For them it was "walkover" because they were the only one who was really talented and gifted...in modern time many, many players are really talented and brilliant.
I can mention many names today who would had a chance against Fischer.
Do you really think that Fischer would outplay example Aronian, So, Nakamura, Caruana, Ivantchuk, and other topplplayers - over some games? I just can't imagine that. I imagine if they example played best of 5 or best of 10 games, it would be several draws, and wins for both. Fischer would be about equally to them. If Caruana, Naka and the others would play in the same timeperiod as Fischer, they would achieve about the same as Fischer, because they arent much relevant weaker when Fischer played.
In fact Fischer were only good in one or very few openings. Tal very only good when he could saq.
Today the topplayers are more universial and have huge reportoire...
This is something things who make Magnus the goat.
Even Khalifman (by computersimulations) are the 6th strongest chessplayer trough the time)
See?
> 'Magnus lost multiple to Hans? "
>
> Strawman, as new_player_123 did not say Magnus lost multiple times to Hans.
> He did say that Magnus has lost multiple times to players below 2700-which is true.
Oh ok. Its pretty normal to do that. Players below under 2700 are extremely good too - in any timecontrol.
Magnus have example lost many times against example former european blitz champion Sergei Zhigalko, in blitz/bullet online. Magnus have also example lost to Aryan Tari otb in classical or something.
It happens. BUT Magnus wins over them over many games...Example the underdog who face Magnus will win against Magnus about 1 out of atleast 10 games, and some of them will be draw to. In the long run Magnus will anyway will be last man standing, example in random tournaments. And this is the all about.
I have win against Firouzja in fischer random in first attempt several years ago. I cant just come with statement that im better than him in that variant, that is nonsens, because it was luck and he is 10 times stronger than me.
Hans were lucky as an underdog...He also won on first attempt.
But pro's in these days are much stronger than the players when example Morphy and Fischer played, and that is the big difference. The contenders to Morphy and Fischer were weak in general, tactical and positional compared today, on top level.
Remember example "The opera game"? Morphy could do whatever he want in the attack...Why is that? Because the opponent blundered in the opening, thats why! Overrated game.
Another overrated game were "game of the century" with Fischer against Byrne...were Byrne played like he was 900 rated player...so it more difficult for Magnus to win game after game, after game, after game than it was for Morphy and Fischer.
Nakamura once said that Morphy's real strenght if he played today would be around 2300-2400 level.
The chess have devoloped so much since Morphy played.
Morphy would had no chance against Magnus today...Because the strongest chessplayers today plays like engine. Si its extremely difficult to win in these days. Today you have to dig deep to eventually win. When Morphy and Fischer played it was easy for them to win in general. For them it was "walkover" because they were the only one who was really talented and gifted...in modern time many, many players are really talented and brilliant.
I can mention many names today who would had a chance against Fischer.
Do you really think that Fischer would outplay example Aronian, So, Nakamura, Caruana, Ivantchuk, and other topplplayers - over some games? I just can't imagine that. I imagine if they example played best of 5 or best of 10 games, it would be several draws, and wins for both. Fischer would be about equally to them. If Caruana, Naka and the others would play in the same timeperiod as Fischer, they would achieve about the same as Fischer, because they arent much relevant weaker when Fischer played.
In fact Fischer were only good in one or very few openings. Tal very only good when he could saq.
Today the topplayers are more universial and have huge reportoire...
This is something things who make Magnus the goat.
Even Khalifman (by computersimulations) are the 6th strongest chessplayer trough the time)
See?
Not really all the time...
@AnonymousOtter said in #37:
> Not really all the time...
Im impressed of your'e fide rating...aren't you sure you dondt have higher than that?
> Not really all the time...
Im impressed of your'e fide rating...aren't you sure you dondt have higher than that?
Yeah I think Magnus is the greatest of all time, mainly because he was able to collect knowledge from all the past world champions.
@DiegoJL_ClubEco64 said in #39:
> Yeah I think Magnus is the greatest of all time, mainly because he was able to collect knowledge from all the past world champions.
First of all it requires brain to be world champion, not reading many books as you can.
Magnus have super brain, with super memory.
Einstein had an estimated iq of about 160-170. Magnus have an iq of 190-200. Who makes him one of the smartest people on the planet.
With the time people get smarter, taller, heavier, faster, stronger, and so on. With the time people breaking record after record...its normal. This is nothing much with books, acces to engines. Are you smart then you are smart.
Magnus were 13 and IM when he drew against Kasparov and won against Karpov. Enough said.
> Yeah I think Magnus is the greatest of all time, mainly because he was able to collect knowledge from all the past world champions.
First of all it requires brain to be world champion, not reading many books as you can.
Magnus have super brain, with super memory.
Einstein had an estimated iq of about 160-170. Magnus have an iq of 190-200. Who makes him one of the smartest people on the planet.
With the time people get smarter, taller, heavier, faster, stronger, and so on. With the time people breaking record after record...its normal. This is nothing much with books, acces to engines. Are you smart then you are smart.
Magnus were 13 and IM when he drew against Kasparov and won against Karpov. Enough said.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.